I have a client who was 16 on 6.8.04. He has sensory Defensiveness, ADHD, DYSPRAXIA, ECZEMA AND Asthma. Because of his condition, his Mother was made his appointee when he became 16. Prior to his 16th birthday he had an award of DLA which terminated on 6.8.04. -

low rate mobility, on the grounds that he needed some to guide or supervise him when walking in unfamilier areas and

Middle rate care, on the grounds that he needed to be constantly supervised, with or without short breaks right through the dayso that he does not cause substantial danger to himself or others.

On the renewal application, on the anniversary of his 16th birthday, and for no other reason, the decision came back that he was not entitled to either component.

OK - the only change of circs was that he reached the age of 16 - other than that the DM is in effect saying that his medical condition has miraculously improved over a period of 24 hours. The information on the new application is not far different to the original claim - This has now got as far as appeal, and I know we will not get him to attend, only his mother will.

Other's must have run into this problem before - any ideas on how to approach it.......

Had one which is a nightmare. See CDLA 4228 2003 in my experience DBU tend to deal with a parent until 18 where claimant had claimed as a child which seems to be very wrong.

My first thought was 'has client made a new claim in his own right post 16?' but given your client's problems I'm not so sure that's a good idea with an extant appeal.

It should be easier for a 16 year old to get DLA than just before as cooking test applies and 'normal child' comparators don't.

But simply if he says mum can be his rep and you can be her rep (that's how I've squared mine with TAS) I don't see what's wrong with appeal going ahead with her evidence. Tribunal may want to adjourn for him to come along but unless mother and/or other medical evidence is contradictory I don't see why any adult claimant has to be there.

The way I see it Andrew is that the logic they use follows the line that he's a child who needs a lot of supervision one day, and a 16 year young adult the next who doesn't need any. I guess what I was seeking was a form of arguement along those lines.

His mother, as official appointee, has signed the Authorisation for me, so that's not the problem - his conditions are such that he just cannot manage day to day living without a large amount of input from his parents - certainly couldn't make a claim in his own right.

There is no logic. Many clients get refusals or significant reductions on renewal and the DBC drag out the old argument that they're not obliged to look at the old claim.

I've just today dealt with a client who was on high care and low mob for whom we argued successfully at tribunal that he had sev. behavioural probs and therefore should be passported to high mob.

Following renewal, the award has been reduced to middle and low! Goes against a) the expert opinion of his paediatrician, b) the opinion of the tribunal and c) the info on the renewal forms which confirm the night time needs and that nothing has changed.

I reckon the DMs consider there might well be an improvement so best reduce the award or reject it and then the claimant can go to tribunal to show othrewise. Be easier/ better if they actually relied on contacting the relevant specialists first.

The test of whether attention is reasonably required can be an issue as someone grows up. As a child gets older and devlopes more skills, the need for help may change or diminish.
I'm thinking of a client I helped recently who had incontinence problems. The DWP did not dispute the type of attention but said that at her age she should now be able to cope by herself.